Kingdom, Republic, Empire

Post Reply New Topic

In the history of ancient Rome, traditional divisions are the Roman Kingdom, the Roman Republic, and the Roman Empire. In the early days of the Empire, many of the trappings of the Republic were maintained; there was no formal office of "emperor." To keep this post short (because I'm tired), do you think we're seeing a similar phenomenon in the United States? We maintain the traditional offices, but oftentimes the political disputes seem to be somewhat "for show." Congress doesn't really exercise its prerogatives when it comes to war, for example, but it engages in endless debate on sideshows.

I don't think there is a direct parallel but having read 'The Imperial Presidency' the accumulation of executive power by that office is remarkable.

I don't think we're there yet, but we're getting closer...

The turning point for Rome was between Sulla and Caesar.

Sulla had enough Roman shame to give up the Dictatorship and retire to the country after "Setting the Republic to rights." After all, good Romans do not submit to tyrants or aspire to be tyrants (no matter how much they secretly want to).

Caesar made little pretense regarding his intention to remain as Dictator for life. When the conspirators killed Caesar, liberating the Republic from a tyrant and would be king, the mob howled for their blood.

The Republic fell because the mob did not care about the Republic anymore or understand why it was fundamental to being Roman...

That whole crypto-monarchy thing under the principate was just to mollify the upper classes so they could still pretend to be "Real Romans."

But make no mistake, it was never a gradual transformation from republic back to monarchy. Caesar just perpetrated the first in a long line of military coups...


Anyway....

I think we could be headed toward a similar fate.

Americans have a near holy regard for our constitution. They treat it just like the bible--they never read it and would not understand it if they did.

I think, just like in Rome, the right leader could make the mob abandon the American Republic because most Americans don't understand or value our system anymore. And yeah, just like the Romans, we would cling to the old office names. We could have a powerless congress and a President-for-life.

South/Central American countries do it all the time.

^^^^

For me the turning point for Rome was significantly earlier, when the Gracchi brothers were killed. Their efforts to reform the state, while popular, showed that the system of government within the Republic was fatally flawed. After their deaths Rome was essentially in the hands of the Optimates party. The ascendency of the Optimates party drove the Populares resistance into the only outlet they had left, the army, the result was just a matter of time. The inability of Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus to successfully oppose the reforms of Gaius Marius essentially placed one side in the army and the other in the senate. The Optimates having legitimized force in their killing of the Gracchi could not oppose their rivals when they did the same. The transition from constitutional power exercised by the few to popular power exercised through the army was pretty much over by the time Sulla began his ascendency.

^^^

Yeah, I can’t argue with that.

By the time Romans started killing Tribunes their system was certainly broken.

And, if not for Marius, neither Sulla nor Caesar would have had the client armies and power base they needed to bully the senate.

A primary failing of the Roman Republic is that it was aristocratic rather than democratic. The Roman "mob" had little or no suffrage in the Republic. The Senate was a purely aristocratic institution, and even plebeian politicians were of a "noble" social stratum. Between Kingdom, Republic, and Empire, ancient Rome never achieved liberal democracy.

I would not go that far, the plebeians traditionally did not hold office, but they were still citizens with a right to vote. I underlined sufferage there because plebeian citizens certainly did have the right of jus suffragiorum. In practice the aristocracy possessed a virtual monopoly over the positions but this does not mean the system was non-democratic; it still fits the definition of a representative democracy. The plebeians actually exercised a power-check which is institutionally far more powerful than anything the lower-class today possess; through the office of the Tribune of the Plebs. The sacrosanctity of the office, gave the holder of the position an effective veto over the affairs of the Senate, the other magistrates could not exercise a veto against this action. I can hardly imagine a comparable position within the US congress operating with a Tribune of the Poor with the power of veto over all business.

The Roman system was convoluted, but representative, especially after the Conflict of the Orders, it failed because the law could not be exercised effectively in practice, as it was breaking down and the patrician class resorted to violence to resolve social crisis. It was the use of violence over law that caused the plebs to look elsewhere because the law could not be effectively enforced. To claim that the system was not democratic because not everyone ended up being represented in practice is a standard that not even today's democratic states can accomplish. The position of Justice of the Supreme Court is open, that said, every one of the present stock has an affiliation with the Ivy League. That issue, like the one in Rome was a de facto problem, not a de jure one.

First, let me say, listen to 91. The guy knows his Roman civics!

Now, sure I was being a bit simplistic because I'm trying to push a point... but it's a valid point. Political systems live and die by the consent of the people.

In the transition from republic to crypto-monarchy/empire you are seeing the social contract in action.

The Republic died because the average Roman didn't give a damn about its passing and thought they had a better deal under imperial dictatorship--and for a long time, they probably did.

Oh and about those noble plebeian politicians... How are they any different than modern American politicians? Check the demographics of congress. You'll be hard pressed to find many who took office with a net-worth under a million dollars.